If one were to get technical, this should be a Car Show Classic since that is where I took these pictures. However, in my defense, this 1953 Plymouth has been tootling all over this area with its owner enjoying every mile of it. A car show is simply where I was finally able to snag a few pictures of it.

Despite the fact Plymouth made 647,451 cars in the Cambridge and Cranbrook series’ that year, a person is hard pressed to actually find very many of them anywhere. Unlike some other cars of the period, such as the ubiquitous 1957 Chevrolet, it appears the number of 1953 Plymouths has actually dwindled since they were made. What a novel concept.

Defying what the dowdy styling would seem to indicate, Plymouth sales were up nearly 40% over the 1952 models. While 1953 was Plymouth’s 25th anniversary, there was little fanfare made about this notable milestone by Chrysler. Perhaps avoiding any hoopla could be attributed to both Ford and Buick marking their fifty years in business, with Ford making note of it in the steering wheel hub of every 1953 model car they built.

Photo by Time Life Pictures/National Archives/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images

Another possibility for this hesitancy was the Korean War. Caution had been exercised by the federal government in early 1952 to conserve steel should US involvement escalate. With all indicators soon appearing much more favorable for less involvement, material restrictions were eased in time for the 1953 model year.

Plymouth was likely on tap to save steel regardless simply by virtue of their 1953 update, it being another overhaul of the 1949 models.

In 1952, Plymouth had offered the 111″ wheelbase Concord (the four on the right side of the picture) with the upscale Cambridge and Cranbrook on a less modest 118.5″ wheelbase.

For 1953, Plymouth realigned their models to the base Cambridge and upper trim Cranbrook, both resting on a 114″ wheelbase, a length that wasn’t exactly an even compromise between the two former series. Overall length was also down 4.75″ from 1952. In a time when cars were starting to creep outward in length and width, Plymouth shriveled.

However, the 1953 model was shorter in height, likely much to the chagrin of Chrysler president K.T. Keller. By his own admission, he didn’t want to make cars that a person could pee over and a three inch reduction in the height of the Plymouth did help with achieving such a lofty conquest.

Plymouth remained in third place of the sales race for 1953, with the Cranbrook four-door sedan far and away the most popular of the lot with nearly 299,000 built. This particular Cranbrook well represents the most favored child and she does have a story to tell. This story of course leads into another story. And that may lead into a third – which is why you come here in the first place!

Our featured Plymouth was sold new twenty-five miles north of me in the little town of Fulton, a town whose primary claim to fame is having Westminster College, an institution that simultaneously hosted Harry Truman and Winston Churchill for speeches in 1946. This set the stage for many future world leaders, such as Mikhail Gorbechev, Margaret Thatcher, and Lech Wałęsa, to visit Westminster College in the Truman/Churchill tradition. Not too shabby for an otherwise anonymous town of 12,000 persons.

This Plymouth was originally purchased by a resident of Fulton who rarely went anywhere and never very far. Prior to the current owner taking possession, our two-tone Cranbrook had never ventured any further than 85 miles from home. That distance was a singular occurrence to visit the state fair.

Looking at the odometer, this mileage does not have any hidden digits in front of it. 38,758 miles is all she has on her.

At some point in time, the owner passed away and the car was purchased by an individual here in Jefferson City. This person loves old Mopars of all varieties, but as is often the case, storage room became precious and the Plymouth had to find a new home. He sold the car to Todd, the gentleman JPCavanaugh and I met by happenstance at the Studebaker Museum in South Bend, Indiana.

There is where the things get complicated.

Let’s start with the front door.

The 1953 Mobilgas Economy Run ended in Sun Valley, Idaho – not Kansas City. There are times when a person needs to take a few creative liberties and Kansas City is more relatable than Sun Valley for those who will be seeing this car out and about.

However, if this were a Mercury Sun Valley instead of a Plymouth, the creative liberties may or may not have happened.

The desire with touting the Mobil Gas Economy Run was to liven up the old Plymouth with something interesting because, as was posed to me, what the hell else can you do with a 1953 Plymouth? It’s been mission accomplished as this door painting generates a lot of curiosity.

Sometime in March, Todd and I went to lunch in his Plymouth. Stopping at a restaurant outside of town, the car generated some initial interest while the Mobil Oil sign convinced people to ask questions. It was almost difficult to leave the place.

How does an ultra-low mileage sixty-three year old time capsule ride? On paved surfaces it provides a smooth ride with the only interior noise being from the flathead six at speeds above 50 to 55 mph. An overdrive transmission was available to make any ’53 Plymouth happier at high speeds, but that was a $98 option on a car having a base price of $1,853. For comparison, a radio cost $100. This Plymouth has neither.

From the passenger’s perspective, K.T. Keller was right about Chrysler making cars in which you could wear your fedora without problem. Headroom is delightfully ample and the overall comfort is amazing with a shallow dashboard that gives the feeling of nearly unimpeded room. Sure, it lacks seatbelts, everything inside is made of nice, solid steel, and crumple zones are going to be on whatever gets hit. Yet looking at this car through the prism of 1953 shows me a car that could easily accommodate six medium framed persons without a lot of difficulty.

As an aside, there was another 1953 Plymouth that hauled that many people routinely. My paternal grandfather purchased a brand-new 1953 Plymouth for commuting to work helping build the nuclear power plant near Kevil, Kentucky. Charging his passengers paid for his Plymouth. This is the only remaining picture of the car and it was taken in July 1959; my aunt is in the foreground.

Another thing to remember about 1953 is there were simply fewer paved roads at that time. Any direction Todd picks to go home involves several miles of gravel road, with some sections being poorly graded creek gravel having a rather large nominal size. To put it in other words, some of those roads are as rough as a cob. As we traversed several miles having such a surface, there was never a single squeak, rattle, or shudder from the Plymouth. It remained as composed (and nearly as smooth) as a luxury car on the interstate. Cars were built quite stout back in the day.

Slogging around at 15 to 20 mph on these gravel roads revealed something else. The old flathead six has a terrific amount of torque and meandering along in second gear at such speeds doesn’t faze it one iota. Unsurprisingly, this Plymouth is better suited for use on such low speed roads than it is for use on modern four-lane highways. That rear axle ratio of 3.73:1 certainly comes into play here as does the engine’s peak torque of 177 lbs-ft at a very usable 1,200 rpm.

Going 15 to 20 mph in second is likely playing to its strengths, which is saying something on such a stout car.

Incidentally, Plymouth did offer their Hy-Drive semi-automatic transmission starting in March 1953; it was a $146 option. By July of 1953, the take rate was only 25%.

Another area of stoutness is the windshield visor. It is not original to the car as I sold this visor to Todd a few months ago. It had been on my father’s 1946 Ford way back when and I pulled it from a scrap pile at my grandmother’s house around 1990. I’ve kept toting it around with me to every residence I’ve had since 1998.

The visor was manufactured by some aftermarket company and neither Todd nor I could determine the brand. Since it has an adjustable width, getting it to fit the Plymouth wasn’t a problem; the problem was stability in the center of the visor at speeds over 30 mph.

The solution?

A telescopic pole from that bastion of inexpensive paraphernalia, Harbor Freight. Since this has been installed this visor could withstand 200 mph speeds with nary a complaint.

For a completely bizarre tangential story, Todd has crossed paths with the Shafer family previously. While I took pictures, he and my father struck up a conversation only to discover they were both in basic training at the same time in mid-1969 at Ft. Leonard Wood.

This Plymouth is not a show car – it is a driver. Todd has repeatedly told me how the car he has paid the least for is his favorite and simply the most fun to drive.

To emphasize this, the day Todd and I had lunch he drove me back home in his 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray convertible. With its seven-speed manual transmission, it is the only car I’ve experienced that tried to break traction at 75 mph – it was a hoot. However, Todd and I soon started talking about his Plymouth again.

I agree that this re-style has a certain international quality to it. And it was also shorter than its predecessor, which did not endear it to Americans who were wanting something longer and lower at the time. It was “downsized” at a time when Americans were wanting “upsized”.

Of course, the earlier 118.5 inch wheelbase was ungodly long for a low priced car in 1952-53. The 51 Dodge I drove had been on a 124 inch wheelbase, same as the 68 Newport which I was driving at the time.

If my Memory does not deceive me, These did rather well in the economy runs – they were capable of 30 MPG if you were careful, pretty amazing when you thing about it before electronic fuel injection and engine management.

Great read Jason! It’s always refreshing to see that someone cares for a car that is often the object of scorn.

One thing that always puzzled me is the origin of the name “Cranbrook”. I don’t know if this was an intended theme, but “Concord” and “Cambridge” are both historical towns in Massachusetts. Cranbrook is nowhere to be found on the map, though it does sound like it could be the name of one of the towns in southeastern Mass. that has a lot of cranberry bogs.

In researching this I read somewhere the Cranbrook, Cambridge, and Concord names were not references to any particular town so much as the names of city streets near one of the Chrysler facilities in Detroit. That there also towns by these names was simply a coincidental perk.

I’ll defer to Aaron or someone from nearer Detroit on whether there are city streets with these names.

there’s a Cranbrook Dr. near 8 Mile and Livernois, Cambridge Ave. runs parallel to Seven Mile Rd. between roughly the Lodge and Telegraph, and Concord Ave. is just off of I-94 right by the old Packard Plant. They’re all within a few miles of Highland Park (where Chrysler used to be HQd.)

I read somewhere years ago that the model names were for very upscale Hotels. Plaza, Savoy, Cambridge, and Cranbrook I know are Hotels, and in a National Geographic remember seeing a luxury hotel named “The Belvedere” but don’t remember where.

Enjoyable read Jason. I have a soft spot for early 1950s Chrysler products and find the Plymouth to have a cleaner style both inside and out than my 1953 Chrysler Windsor. I feel the Chrysler tried a little too hard to be “upscale”

Those flathead sixes were really strong at low rpm and and the overall effect of the K.T. Keller era were safe and solid vehicles.

Having said that, I must admit that the pictured Mercury Sun Valley is really gorgeous (I know, call me fickle). I think the yellow Mercury is a 1954 model based on the tail lights. The 1953 is almost identical but has a flatter tail light assembly.

I never cared much for the looks of these, but this write-up helped me past that. Mechanically and interior-wise, this was a beautiful car. And wow – 38k!

I once drove a 51 Dodge Meadowbrook. It had lived a much fuller life than this Plymouth, but was still a tight, solid car. These cars were made for a pre-interstate America, and were most in their element when under 40 mph.

I’ve often pondered how much cars changed between the mid and late-1950s. My ’53 Buick doesn’t seem to like going faster than 55-60 for very long (although it will go 80 and faster if you really want to), but a ’59 Buick would cruise at 80 all day with no strain at all. Times changed quickly!

I once hitched a ride with a guy from Baltimore all the way to Ohio in ’51 or ’50, and he had it at least 55 the whole time on the interstate (except for long steep grades), sometimes at 60+. It was original, and had some miles under its belt. It felt quite happy at that speed, with a pleasant murmur from the engine compartment.

And even the Yoder’s very tired ’53 was always driven at 50-55 on the back roads of Iowa and at 55+ on HW1. They had driven it out to Oregon and back two years earlier.

My dad had a 51 Plymouth business coupe that he kept for 20 years. He was impressed with the power when compared to his 67 VW bus. One day he came to pick up my brother and me at the school bus stop with my mom and baby sister on the only front bench seat. My brother and I were a bit embarrassed that the car didn’t have a rear seat with the school kids watching. So when we got behind the front seat we pretended to sit down as my dad drove away. Interesting that the speedometer and steering wheel in the redesigned 53 are the same as on the 51.

Unexciting but very durable car in this write-up. The 1946-54 Mopars are a generally inexpensive way to get into the old car hobby with a minimum of repair.
My friend’s dad drove a cab in Baltimore during the fifties. The Dodges and Plymouths with the flathead 6 cylinder were favorites because of their general durability. The only caveat was a valve job ~ 50K miles because of oil burning. Since he did his own work, that was not a problem. And, since he had a partner in the cab, the car was driven almost 24 hours daily, so not bad considering.

Dad bought a 1953 Dodge that was an absolute piece of garbage after their trusty ten-year-old 1950 Plymouth rusted away a bit too much when the front seat began to fall through the floor! When dad and I drove that Dodge home one early Saturday afternoon, mom could have shot him for buying such a heap without her being involved in the transaction and saying “no” to the whole thing before signing on the dotted line!

Anyway, I think the thing that shoots these models down is that reverse-slanted back door window angle. It worked on the mid-60s models, not on these. Not much love for these at all, much like the 1953 Chevys. I agree with StudeDude – cars made before interstates we tough as nails, regardless of OEM – they had to be!

A couple of items of note:

– The windshield visor prop good for 200 mph? Ha ha! That thing wouldn’t go that fast if dropped from 50,000 feet! I’d almost pay to see that, however…

– I was also in basic training in 1969, FWIW.

– Nothing wrong with Sun Valley to me, especially since “Sun Valley Serenade” is one of my favorite all-time movies! Hope to go there someday.

– Why does the word “hell” always have to be used as an adjective? Personally, I find it unnecessary and annoying.

Fayettteville-Rogers-Bentonville, but my employer has offices that I visit regularly in Springfield and Branson.

I can’t believe I still remember that factoid about Churchill and Fulton, which Dr. Peterson taught me in my last semester of college. “History of British Oration” was the only senior-level speech communication class I could find at a time that fit my work schedule. Despite taking it solely reasons of convenience, it’s a course for which I ended up having many fond memories.

I’ve seen a few Cranbrooks for sale over the past couple of years, in good condition and in need of a sympathetic owner. Since these cars are mostly immune to rat rodders this is exactly the kind of person and use the car needs.

Really it’s not an outstanding classic car, but it is an outstanding experience to enjoy it..

My Father had a ’56 Plymouth that probably had much the same drivetrain (manual transmission, flathead 6) as his first new car. Likewise, my Grandfather (on mother’s side) had a ’51 Chrysler Windsor, though it had the flathead, it had a semiautomatic transmission…it was the car my Mother learned to drive in.

I came home in the hospital in the ’56 but he didn’t have it too many years; he drove it from Massachusetts to California (he got a job in El Monte) and traded it for a ’61 Rambler Classic Wagon (automatic, plus needed the space for 2 toddlers, my sister and I) that he bought in Compton. I think it was a pretty much a stripped Plaza model, though I have no memory of it myself (going by pictures…and my Father is recently deceased, so I can no longer ask him)

My Grandfather died in 1966, but my Uncle took over the ’51 Windsor, I think it blew a head gasket in 1969 and my Uncle junked it and bought a ’69 Ford LTD…he was just finishing his undergraduate degree and about to start his career.

My Father also owned an ’80 Dodge Omni and a ’86 Dodge 600, but other than that, haven’t had many MOPARs in the family (well, also had an Uncle with a ’76 Dodge Aspen Wagon)

As for what to do with a 53 Plymouth, I used to go to a flea market and there was an antique dealer who was there every week who drove a 53 Plymouth. He had a roof rack on it and he loaded that car right up. He looked like Jed Clampett driving down the road. He told me that the Plymouth was his flea market car because a lot of the interested people would come into his booth to look at it. When he got home he parked it in the barn until next week, so he didn’t have to load and reload it except for at the flea market.

I’ve learned over the years that this is generally code for an engine which doesn’t make much horsepower. Like how people praise the Ford 300 six as “torquey” even though it made less torque than the 5.0 V8 offered the same year.

Yes, very generally speaking, if the torque is less than the cubic inches, it isn’t really making much power.

When folks talk about these sixes and their torque, it’s really about where they make their torque: very low on the rpm band, which is what makes them feel “torquey”. In a truck or vehicle that gets used in certain ways, that is both useful as well as makes for lazy shifting, etc.

FWIW, if I had the choice of a 300 six or 302 V8 in a Ford pickup, I’d take the six for those reasons, as well as it’s easier and cheaper to work on and maintain. The 300, with its long stroke, has a terrific torque band, which made it very popular for commercial use. UPS used them by the mega-thousands for decades.

the 4.9’s torque peak is only about 100 rpm lower than the 5.0 V8’s. Not a hill of beans worth of difference in terms of capability. only that it might let you get away with saving money on a transmission with fewer gears, especially on a vehicle which doesn’t need to reach highway speeds often if at all.

I don’t know what year you’re looking at, but in 1970, the 300 was rated at 294 ft.lbs @ 2000 rpm; the 302 at 300 ft.lb.@2600 rpm. That’s not an insignificant difference.

Possibly in the later Malaise Era, the difference was less. Ford was the worst in terms of losing power in their engines during that time. So maybe both were strangled half to death at a lower rpm. You got some stats?

How late was the 302 even available in trucks? By 1976, it appears to be gone.

jz78817

Posted June 6, 2016 at 12:20 PM

I was comparing the last model year for both, 1996. The 1996 F-Series engine lineup was the 4.9 (300) six, the “5.0” (302) V8, the 5.8 (351) V8, the 7.5 (460) V8, and the 7.3 Powerstroke.

in 1996, the 300 put out 150 hp and 260 lb-ft, while the 302 put out 205 hp and 275 lb-ft.

and keep in mind hp/torque ratings in 1970 were “gross” ratings, and were about as divorced from reality as could be.

I didn’t realize I had to do “homework” to comment on a blog. the numbers I found had the 300 torque peak at 2,200 rpm, the 302 at 2,400. So I fudged a bit, but 200 rpm still isn’t worth a hill of beans.

nikita

Posted June 7, 2016 at 7:24 AM

Having owned a 1994 F-150 with the 5.0 (automatic, 3.55 gears), it felt surprisingly underpowered, compared to its “paper” specs. Second gear was needed on grades that the Chevy with a 4.3 V-6 and 3.42 gears could climb in third. I had test driven Fords with the 4.9 six and they didnt feel significantly different from the 5.0.

Jason, Another Jason from Missouri, here. (reared in the western suburbs of St. Louis) My maternal grandparents had a Burgundy and Gray 53 Plymouth I remember little of as I was 5 when they traded it on new 56 Plymouth Belvedere in Red & White, Gram loved that car, She loved the ride height and smooth handling, preferring to drive that Plymouth even after Grandpa had purchased a new Lincoln in 61, She would ride in the Lincoln, but never drove it.(Being an example of the well known little Ozark granny lady, she could mule up considerable) I know there is a variety of differences in Plymouths in 53 and 56, however, the comfort and handling was similar. As an aside. Gram was born in Paris, mo. And lived a lot of her pre marriage life in Mexico Mo. Before moving to Clayton. Have a lot of distant family in Audrain Co, A lot of old iron in that area. For some reason I remember a lot of Plymouths.

The Mennonite family I used to spend summers with in Iowa had a very tired one like this the first year I went to stay with them in 1961. They had used it to drive out to Oregon (near Eugene, actually) where they visited relatives. It was the only big trip like that they ever made, and they had lots of stories about it. The Plymouth needed a few minor ministrations along the way, but it got them there and back, despite being a tired old car before setting out.

The next year, Mr.Yoder had taken a job delivering mail on a rural route (he had a hard time making enough money to feed his large family ion their small farm). I rode with him on that route once or twice, which meant he didn’t have to lean over to stick the mail in the boxes. The poor old Plymouth was very tired, but kept chugging along. By the next year, it had expired, and was out out to pasture.

Nice story. What struck me was how much things have changed with regards to the need for car safety, primarily making note of how most rural road surfaces back in 1953 prohibited the speeds that we take for granted today. In that regard, a slow moving Plymouth really didn’t need all that much safety gear since the roads upon which it would be traveling wouldn’t allow anyone to drive fast enough to be truly hazardous.

Then there’s the bit about how dramatically Chrysler switched from being engineering-based to style-based to sell cars after Exner came on board. It began in 1955, with the real downward spiral in 1957. To this day, Chrysler has never recovered, and you have to wonder how different things might have been if Chrysler management had stuck with the ultra-conservative (but well-built and engineered) pre-1955 business model. They could have been today’s domestic Toyota. Instead, they’re, literally, today’s Fiat.

Interesting topic that has not been explored often enough. K.T. Keller remained board chairman until his retirement in 1956. He would, therefore, have been the man still at the helm during the gestation of those troublesome ’57 models, which would have been built beginning around probably August of 1956. Was he coasting towards retirement his last couple of years? Back in the 20s and 30s, Walter Chrysler had considered Keller the best production man he had ever encountered. Or was Keller being sold a bill of goods by engineering, telling him that they were perfectly capable of having a quality car go from drawings to production in 2 years?

I am inclined to believe that there is probably some of both. Keller knew full well that the conservative approach he had championed in designing the 49 models had been a failure, and he had been instrumental in hiring Exner and moving him up to chief of styling in time to do the ’55 models. He probably figured that with styling in hand, he could relax a bit because building quality cars had become a given under his tenure. I wonder if Keller would have done things the same way ten years earlier?

Chrysler’s biggest problem was a lack of good people a level or two down from Keller. Most of them went back to the 30s and had become a sort of self-referential “old boys club” a little like GM became in the 90s, but with more liquor. I think a lot of people were telling Keller what he needed to hear and he did not exert the kind of control that he had a few years earlier. Chrysler has never functioned well without a strong leader (and has often not functioned well even with one. 🙂 )

Somebody liked the ’53 Plymouth styling – and it seems like it was the stylists at Hudson.

The ’54-’54 Hudson Jet had proportions not too far off the Plymouth, and the ’54 revisions even brought in some styling details in the grill and side trim that are quite similar to the Plymouth.

The new for ’55 Hudson Wasp definitely has the Plymouth’s greenhouse aft of the A pillar.

The ’53 Plymouth arguably had some real improvements as a refresh of the 1950 Plymouth – except perhaps the split seat design as seen in a page from the Plymouth brochure. Its funny how these kinds of improvements come and go with major revisions. It’s not like you can’t go to a Chrysler dealer today and find cramped and hard to access rear seats and trunks with poor designs. (Cough, 200, cough.)

I “inherited” a 53 Plymouth from my sister when she graduated from college and bought a near new 67 Mustang. I think mine was a Cranbrook 2 door sedan, but it was certainly not the low line Cambridge. Anyway, I thought that the 53 Plymouth was THE ugliest vehicle ever produced by Chrysler, and still feel it is the ugliest car they have built.
As this write-up says, on SMOOTH roads these are decent little cars, but throw in any bumps, lumps, or potholes and you would swear you were driving a vintage truck.
Mine also had Powerflite automatic transmission, a very stout transmission, indeed. Several times that car was driven at near 50 mph in low, when the gear selector “appeared” to be in Drive….but wasn’t.
Hard to believe Plymouth was the 3rd best selling car in 53, but is it really any harder to find a 53 Chevy or Ford….or Buick, nowadays?

My parents had a 1954 Plymouth, with the Powerflite auto, that they drove for nearly seven years, early 1957 to mid 1963. The story in our family was that the Plymouth was purchased at my mother’s insistence as she was tired of manually shifting gears. I never got to drive the thing but do remember it as being solidly reliable; I’m relying on memories from a long time back but don’t recall it needing anything other than normal maintenance and the regular consumables. It was “the” car and was used on family trips to the St. Louis area and to northern Indiana; even with two adults and four children it was capable of a reasonable highway speed. After my father purchased the Ford that (eventually) became my first COAL the Plymouth was sold to one of his coworkers who drove it back and forth to work. It lasted in this capacity until 1970 or so when it finally became so rusty that it was no longer safe to drive.

In Australia where most roads were not paved in this era the 53 Cranbrook lived on until about 63 when the Valiant took its place, Chrysler Australia redesigned the front sheet metal tacked (literally) some fins on installed an optional V8 and called it good, the basic shell remained the same they were certainly tough cars.
Edit the Cranbrook became the Chrysler Royal AP1 thru AP4 the first Aussie Valiant being the 63 AP5.

Fab! That is a beauteous car, and the slightly pitted, excellent-but-not-brand-new-perfect trim makes me smile. The only thing making my eyes bleed is those current-production headlamps, ack! The face jest don’t look right without the bullseyes (a quick google search turned up at least one for sale)

The ’53 Plymouth bodyshell lived an unusually long life in Australia, where it was the basis for the Chrysler Royal, periodically revised and sold through 1963. Ever wonder what a ’53 Plymouth looks like with tailfins? With quad headlamps? See for yourself!)

It’s implied that the old Mopar is more fun than the expensive and fast new Vette… I can relate to that, having both older, smaller motorcycles and a V-Max. While the Max is great fun and is all the magazine reviewers said it is, I have once again confirmed that I get more enjoyment out of driving a slow vehicle fast than having to drive a fast vehicle slow.

Of course the old Mopar is more fun—nothing implicit about it. Anyone can have a new Corvette on demand and many people do; all it takes is enough money or credit. The drive and ride experience in a Corvette is pretty much the same as that of numerous other recent cars. It’s supposed to impress us because it’s expensive and it can break the speed limit quicker and by a greater margin than many other cars? Uh…no, thanks; I’m a grownup.

The Plymouth, on the other hand, is a one-of-almost-none 63-year-old time capsule. Almost nobody has one, and even someone with limitless money can’t necessarily have one this good today or tomorrow or next week or month or year. And its ride and drive experience is thoroughly unlike just about every other car not only on the road today, but in the experience of a large plurality if not a majority of today’s drivers.

It’s no versus; the Plymouth wins with three wheels tied behind its back.

Anyone here ever drive the 111″ wheel base ones ? .
.
I imagine they’d have a better road feel on the narrow and curvy back roads I prefer….
.
I foolishly didn’t buy a DeSoto Business Coupe in the 1970’s , it was sitting forlornly up to it’s hubs in dried mud in Whittier , Ca. , no grass so no floor rust .
.
Oops .
.
-Nate

What a lovely old survivor ! .
.
This car is *perfect* for Blue Road touring , just keep it to 50 +/- MPH and you’ll love it .
.
These had the terrific dual leading shoe (?Lockheed?) brakes too , as long as they were properly adjusted they stopped on a dime from 55 and slower MPH .
.
Rather dowdy looking but a nice car all around .
.
-Nate

The styling is actually very close to the ’53 Chevy, yet it hits me as ugly. I think it’s the “c” pillar. I have never liked that reverse slant on any car, but it particularly doesn’t work here. A one inch difference in wheelbase, 114″ vs 115″ for Ford and Chevy that year cant make any visible difference. While not an all time beauty, of the three, the Ford looks the most modern to me.

Unless the Plymouth was priced lower, I see no compelling reason to buy one in 1953 except for a loyal repeat customer, as implied in the PM article above. A couple of decades earlier, Plymouth may have been a technical leader, such as being first with hydraulic brakes. By ’53 it had fallen behind. Chevy had the now fully automatic Powerglide mated to a new 115hp OHV six and available power steering. Ford also had a fully automatic transmission and a very modern 101hp OHV six, along with the old, but still appealing to many, 115hp flathead V-8.

Right you are Nikita. Plymouth sales may have been up nearly 40% over the 1952 models, but this paled in comparison with the competition. 1953 was a banner year for the U.S auto industry, with Ford up a staggering 100% (to 1.25 million) and Chevy up 60% (to 1.35 million). Plymouth actually lost ground to both.

The big reason IMHO was the absence of a fully automatic transmission, which didn’t appear until Powerflite was introduced late in the 1954 model year. Don’t know why Plymouth was so late to this game, as Powerglide first appeared in 1950 and Fordomatic in 1951.

Women were just starting to get drivers licenses in great numbers, encouraged by easy to drive automatics, and a bit later, power steering. My parents first car was a 1953 Pontiac, chosen primarily for its Hydra-matic, as my mom wanted to learn how to drive but was intimidated by working the clutch. Also recall a middle-aged woman in the neighborhood whose first car was a 1954 Chevrolet 210 sedan with only 2 options – Powerglide and power steering.

I’m not crazy about reverse slant rear side widows either, but it’s surprising how often you see them on today’s SUVs. The problem is they create a big blind spot from the rear side window to the back window. They work ok with a wrap around rear window that was popular on later 1950s cars.

I am not familiar with these Plymouths – my family’s cars of this era were DeSotos, although I had a number of relatives with 53 Chevys. The thing that struck me from the photos is that the overall dashboard styling seems fairly “modern” for the year.